Toward a Theory of Strategic Communication: A Relationship

Toward a Theory of Strategic Communication: A Relationship

Management Approach

by

Lieutenant Colonel Cheryl D. Phillips United States Army Reserve

United States Army War College Class of 2012

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT: A Approved for Public Release

Distribution is Unlimited

This manuscript is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The views expressed in this student academic research

paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the

Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved

OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

22-03-2012 2. REPORT TYPE

Strategic Research Project 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

8 Aug 2011 – 22 Mar 2012 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Toward a Theory of Strategic Communication: A Relationship Management

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Approach

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

LTC Cheryl D. Phillips, U.S. Army Reserve

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

Dr. Mark A. Van Dyke, Project Adviser

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army War College AND ADDRESS(ES)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT

NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Distribution Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT Currently, the U.S. government uses the message influence model to conduct strategic communication. The model focuses on the message, which, if crafted well, influences the intended receiver toward the goals of the sender. Experience in Afghanistan reveals that the message influence model does not help the U.S. government achieve its interests. Strategic communication policy makers and practitioners must rely on theory to develop a new approach to strategic communication to achieve strategic and operational goals. This paper contributes to the strategic communication practice by providing a theory-based alternative to the message influence model that improves the U.S. government’s ability to meet its objectives. Achieving this purpose also contributes to scholarship by extending relational theory to the study of information as an element of national power. This paper explores the use of the relational theory as a framework for strategic communication practice. Relational theory espouses the importance of mutually beneficial organization-publics relationships. Hence, a relational theory framework for strategic communication fills gaps and builds a bridge between current practice and theory.

15. SUBJECT TERMS Human communication, relational theory, public relations, public affairs, strategic communication

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:

17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

a. REPORT

Unclassified b. ABSTRACT Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE Unclassified

34

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area

code) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

USAWC STRATEGY RESEARCH PROJECT

TOWARD A THEORY OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: A RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT APPROACH

by

Lieutenant Colonel Cheryl D. Phillips United States Army Reserve

Dr. Mark A. Van Dyke Project Adviser

This SRP is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of Strategic Studies Degree. The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, 3624 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (215) 662-5606. The Commission on Higher Education is an institutional accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

The views expressed in this student academic research paper are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

U.S. Army War College

CARLISLE BARRACKS, PENNSYLVANIA 17013

ABSTRACT

AUTHOR: Lieutenant Colonel Cheryl D. Phillips TITLE: Toward a Theory of Strategic Communication: A Relationship Management Approach FORMAT: Strategy Research Project DATE: 22 March 2012 WORD COUNT: 5,981 PAGES: 34 KEY TERMS: Human Communication, Relational Theory, Public Relations, Public Affairs, Strategic Communication CLASSIFICATION: Unclassified

Currently, the U.S. government uses the message influence model to conduct

strategic communication. The model focuses on the message, which, if crafted well,

influences the intended receiver toward the goals of the sender. Experience in Afghanistan

reveals that the message influence model does not help the U.S. government achieve its

interests. Strategic communication policy makers and practitioners must rely on theory to

develop a new approach to strategic communication to achieve strategic and operational

goals.

This paper contributes to the strategic communication practice by providing a theory-

based alternative to the message influence model that improves the U.S. government’s

ability to meet its objectives. Achieving this purpose also contributes to scholarship by

extending relational theory to the study of information as an element of national power. This

paper explores the use of the relational theory as a framework for strategic communication

practice. Relational theory espouses the importance of mutually beneficial organization-

publics relationships. Hence, a relational theory framework for strategic communication fills

gaps and builds a bridge between current practice and theory.

TOWARD A THEORY OF STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION: A RELATIONSHIP MANAGEMENT APPROACH

For years, the debate surrounding the practice of strategic communication

centered on how it could help senior leaders achieve their objectives. Former Chairman

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, U.S. Navy (Ret.), believed that

strategic communication was a process, not a set of capabilities. Other leaders have

expressed perspectives that focused on the importance of the right message, at the

right time, through the right channel. Often, these perspectives centered on the point of

view of a sender, who transmitted a message to a receiver, who interpreted the

message, and was then influenced.

Strategic communicators believed in this formulaic approach. They reasoned that

successful communication entailed crafting a message that resonated with the intended

audience, sending it via a medium relevant to the audience, with intended effect, and at

the optimum time. Following this formula, communicators expected that the intended

audience would receive the message, understand it as intended, and adopt desired

attitudes and behaviors according to the desired effect. This approach is called the

message influence model because messages are seen as vehicles that carry

information from a source to a receiver. “The purpose of the message is to influence the

receiver to understand the information in the same way as the source, if not persuade

him or her to change attitudes or act in a particular way.”1

For more than a decade, the U.S. military has applied the message influence

model to its multiple communication campaigns in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the U.S.

military has been unable to obtain the support of key publics to achieve U.S.

2

government objectives using this approach because the message influence model has

failed. The United States seemed surprised at Afghan citizens’ response to Qur’an

burnings and alleged civilian murders by a U.S. service member in early 2012. A U.S.

adviser at the NATO headquarters in Kabul noted the inability to predict Afghans’

reactions illustrates how little the United States knows about Afghanistan after a decade

of war.2 This paper will demonstrate the need for a new strategic communication

approach based on human communication theory.

The relational theory of human communication provides a useful intellectual

framework for strategic communication practice. Relational theory espouses the

importance of developing and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between

organizations and key publics. Both the organization and publics influence the other,

and communication activities link the parties.

This paper contributes to the strategic communication body of knowledge and

advances the notion that theory should form the foundation for its effective practice.

First, a review and synthesis of scholarly literature identifies the contributions of

research and publications to human communication, relational theory, and strategic

communication. Second, the literature review demonstrates how the relational theory

applies to strategic communication practice. Third, this paper shows how current

relationship building efforts fall short, revealing gaps between current strategic

communication practice and relational theory. Fourth, the application of theory to

practice suggests that a relationship management approach to strategic communication

is more effective than a message influence-based approach. Finally, it provides

3

recommendations for the future practice of strategic communication, applying relational

theory.

Human Communication

Like many complex human activities, communication is abstract, multi-

dimensional, and difficult to define. Scholars from a variety of disciplines look at

communication through diverse lenses to discover a comprehensive working definition

of communication that encompasses its intricacies. How these academicians define

communication, in turn, points them to different theories, models, and approaches.

Many scholars think about communication as a process. Shannon and Weaver

defined communication as "as process in which one mind uses messages to affect

another mind."3 They thought of communication as analogous to a telephone system

with five parts: (1) an information source that created a message to be communicated to

the receiver; (2) a transmitter that encoded the message into a signal that is transmitted

over a channel; (3) the channel, or the medium that carried the signal from transmitter to

receiver and that may be degraded by noise; (4) the receiver that decoded the message

from the signal; and (5) the destination, which is the person for whom the message is

intended.4

Linear Approach. Other scholars think about communication’s ability to affect.

Berlo believed that the basic purpose of communication “is to become an affecting

agent, to affect others, our physical environment, and ourselves, to become a

determining agent, to have a vote in how things are. In short, we communicate to

influence, to affect with intent."5 In 1960, Berlo applied the Shannon-Weaver model to

human communication, beginning with a source that has "ideas, needs, intentions,

information, and a purpose for communicating"6 that are formulated into a message that

4

is translated into symbols by an encoder that uses the skills of the communicator. The

encoded message is sent via a channel to the receiver, who decodes or retranslates the

symbols into a usable form.7 This linear approach is called the message influence

model because messages are seen as “as a vehicle for carrying information from a

source to a receiver. The purpose of the message is to influence the receiver to

understand the information in the same way as the source, if not to persuade the

receiver to change attitudes or act in a particular way."8

For Berlo, fidelity determined the effect of the message. Fidelity explains the

source’s effectiveness in achieving some purpose. As long as fidelity is maintained, and

noise does not degrade the message, the message will reach the destination exactly as

intended by the source. The lack of communicator skill may distort a message at the

encoding or decoding stages. "Distortion occurs because communicators lack sufficient

skills to faithfully translate the information to or from symbols, or their culture or

individual attitudes corrupt the translation process in some way."9

Influence-seeking sources promote fidelity in their transmissions through simple,

concise messages that are easier to encode and decode. Messages can be repeated to

ensure that unskilled receivers "get it right." The sender can also try to understand the

receiver's culture or attitudes, and then deftly encode messages that are least likely to

be distorted.10

According to Rossiter and Pearce, the linear message influence approach to

communication “assumes that the effects of a message are attributable to the content of

a message, thus allowing a competent communication analyst to predict the

5

persuasiveness of clarity of messages based on an analysis of message content.” 11

Research has shown, however, that such predictions are not very accurate.

The emphasis on the immediate effects of the message also limits the linear

approach to communication. Those subscribing to the linear approach assume that the

immediate effects are enduring and that only the recipient is affected by the

communication.12 This is not the case in all communicative events.

Interaction Approach. The interaction approach to the study of the

communication process is more advanced than the linear view, albeit still limited. The

linear model emphasizes the one-way activity of Person A saying B to Person C with

effect D. The interaction perspective points out through a two-way approach that

thereafter Person C may respond with message E to Person A with effect F.13 The

metaphor of a circle describes the interaction view which recognizes that Person A and

Person B respond reciprocally to one another. Key concepts are feedback and mutual

effects.14

The interaction approach acknowledges that both parties affect the other, and

adds together the basic units of interaction viewed in the linear model. Rossiter and

Pearce state that “the interaction approach is a bit more sophisticated in that it

acknowledges that in most communication situations we are rarely only sources or only

recipients of messages.”15

Transactional and Transactive Approaches. Psychologist Berne is credited with

the theory of transactional analysis developed in the 1950s, which is a model of

communication, a theory of personality, and a study of repetitive patterns of behavior.

For Berne, interpersonal communication was at the center of social relationships and

6

psychoanalysis. He began with the notion that when two people encounter each other,

one will speak to the other, termed the transaction stimulus. He called the reaction from

the other person the transaction response. The person sending the stimulus is the

agent; the person who responds is the respondent. Transactional analysis became the

method of examining the transaction: “I do something to you, and you do something

back.”16 Berne’s theory influenced the interpersonal communication field of study.

The transactive approach to the study of communication does a better job than

the linear or interactive models of considering the nature of communication as a

process.17 According to Tucker, Weaver, and Berryman-Fink, “A process is a continuous

interaction of a large number of factors, with each factor affecting every other factor, all

at the same time. A process approach views events and relationships as dynamic,

ongoing, ever-changing, and continuous.”18

Rossiter and Pearce were concerned with communication behavior and assumed

the way people communicate significantly affects the communication processes that

develop. Generally, communication consists of behaviors for coping with messages:

making meanings from messages, and making messages from meanings. “Meaning is

the significance which the communicator assigns to the objects, persons and events in

his environment.”19 In other words, things are what they mean to persons. Things have

different meanings for different people. Additionally, meanings are in people and not in

messages.20

Rather than focusing on sending messages that attempt to influence, the

transactive approach sees communication as an attempt to achieve meaning. The

approach views all participants as active communicators in the sense-making process.

7

The nature of this communication process sees communicative transactions as having a

past, present, and future.21

The transactive approach is concerned with more than how Person A’s message

affects Person B. Instead, it becomes more beneficial to ask how Person A’s and

Person B’s messages affect the other, and how those messages characterize the

relationship between the parties. According to Tucker, Weaver, and Berryman-Fink,

“The transactional approach involves impact or influence, with all parties simultaneously

influencing all other parties. [It] emphasizes the reciprocal, mutually dependent nature of

communication.”22

This more holistic view considers the strategic or psychological, and tactical or

mechanical complexity of communication, and it recognizes that all parties are at the

same time generating and perceiving multiple messages with numerous influences on

all involved. The transactive approach places more emphasis on the relationship of the

parties.

From the interpersonal communication field of study, Barnlund in 1970 first

proposed the transactional model of communication. Barnlund believed that in the

transactional model, interpersonal communication was a dynamic process in which the

two participants are simultaneously sending and receiving messages.23

The transactional model of communication views communication as an intricate

process that evolves from participants joining into a relationship that is more than the

sum of its parts. Communication is much more than a conveyer belt on which messages

are sent back and forth, arriving at the other end in the same form as the message was

sent. According to Thomlison, “As human beings, we have an extraordinary repertoire of

8

communication skills centering around our unique capacity to engage in the mutual

creation of meaning when we communicate with another person.”24

Strategic Communication

The notion that strategic communication is essential to achieving organizational

goals is prevalent in contemporary practice. However, no one has proposed an

adequate definition that addresses communication from the perspectives of all parties,

the effects of their simultaneous interactions, and their mutually desired outcomes.

Lack of a universal definition of strategic communication has led to confusion and

misuse of an important instrument of national power. The Barack Obama administration

referred to strategic communication in the "National Framework for Strategic

Communication" as

the synchronization of words and deeds and how they will be perceived by selected audiences, as well as programs and activities deliberately aimed at communicating and engaging with intended audiences, including those implemented by public affairs, public diplomacy, and information operations professionals.25

The message influence model is at the root of the Obama administration's

approach to strategic communication. This narrow view of communication is linear and

considers the interaction only from the perspective of the communicator whose words

and deeds affect a select audience. While the definition recognizes that audience

perceptions are important, it does not explain how communicators come to know and

understand the audience.

The Department of Defense's (DoD) notion of strategic communication is more

expansive than that of the Obama administration. The DoD defined strategic

communication as

9

focused United States Government efforts to understand and engage key audiences to create, strengthen, or preserve conditions favorable for the advancement of United States Government interests, policies, and objectives through the use of coordinated programs, plans, themes, messages, and products synchronized with the actions of all instruments of national power.26

The DoD takes a transactional view of communication, intentionally seeking to

understand and engage key audiences. However, the communicative act still focuses

on the message source who desires to advance U.S. government interests, policies,

and objectives. Additionally, the definition does not explain how to develop

understanding between the organization and the audiences.

The 2004 "Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic

Communication" defined strategic communication in broadest terms:

Strategic communication is vital to America’s national security and foreign policy…it describes a variety of instruments used by governments for generations to understand global attitudes and cultures, engage in a dialogue of ideas between people and institutions, advise policy makers, diplomats, and military leaders on the public opinion implications of policy choices, and influence attitudes and behavior through communication strategies” (italics in original).27

The Defense Science Board (DSB) went on to say that strategic communication

can “help to shape context and build relationships that enhance the achievement of

political, economic, and military objectives. It can be used to mobilize publics in support

of major policy initiatives – and to support objectives before, during, and after a

conflict.”28 Further, strategic communication “will engage in a respectful dialogue that

begins with listening and assumes decades of sustained effort.”29

By taking a transactional approach to strategic communication, the DSB

considers the process from the perspective of both the message source and receiver.

10

This view promotes the importance of actively building relationships through dialogue

with key publics.

The DoD and DSB definitions of strategic communication share a number of

commonalities: (1) a sender who communicates a message with the intention of

achieving goals; (2) audiences or publics; (3) a desire to engage audiences, which

involves listening and understanding the audience, and implies more than linear

communication; and, (4) the view that strategic communication is a process. The

definitions differ in that the DSB description explicitly seeks to engage in dialogue with

publics, and acknowledges the importance of developing relationships with audiences.

The DoD should include the notion of relationship building and management in its

definition of strategic communication.

Although the concept of dialogue is not part of the DoD’s definition of strategic

communication, it is one its nine “Principles of Strategic Communication.” Dialogue is

defined as the "multi-faceted exchange of ideas to promote understanding and build

relationships."30 Effective communication requires dialogue, which involves active

listening, engagement, and mutual understanding. Trust is engendered through

dialogue, leading to the cultivation of relationships over time.31 The principles fall short,

however, by failing to recognize that a win-win by both the organization and its publics is

desirable.

Though its “Principles of Strategic Communication" are generally sound, the DoD

fails to place importance on a relational approach to strategic communication. It should

include the idea of relationship building as a separate principle and acknowledge the

11

concept as key to achieving organizational goals. While dialogue is an integral element

of relationship building, it is a means and not an end.

The DoD through its nine principles also promotes a message influence

approach to strategic communication that focuses on benefitting the United States

instead of mutually beneficial outcomes. The principle responsive is meant to ensure

the "right audience, right message, right time, and right place."32 For the DoD, the

message and advancing its goals are paramount. "Communication strategy must reach

intended audiences through [a] customized message that is relevant to those

audiences."33

The DSB definition is the broadest and most inclusive of the three strategic

communication definitions presented above because it recognizes the process and

relational nature of communication. This dovetails with the relational theory of

communication. The DSB definition provides the genesis of a useful and meaningful

perspective on which to support the theory-based practice of strategic communication

because of its focus on mutual understanding, dialogue, and relationship building.

Countless studies and reports over the past few years have reiterated the

difficulty of finding a comprehensive definition upon which everyone can agree, and

have advanced various recommendations on how to more effectively conduct strategic

communication. Despite the plethora of reports and recommendations, not one called

for theory to guide strategic communication practice. This is unfortunate, especially

given the fact that the United States has been less than successful in gaining the

support of the Afghan population during the last decade.

12

The Need for Relationship Building

The Army’s counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine advances the notion that foreign

populations in countries where military operations occur are crucial to the mission’s

success. “If the local population is against the presence of foreign actors, structural

long-term changes in the country, which are often the objective of crisis management

operations, cannot be realized.”34

In Afghan culture, personal ties are the foundation of social, political and

economic life. Evidence shows that Coalition forces operating in Afghanistan recognize

the importance of creating relationships with the indigenous populations to build trust

and support for Coalition efforts at the grassroots level.

In Afghanistan, senior U.S. military leaders participate in Key Leader

Engagements, NATO troops participate in shuras, and members of Provincial

Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) conduct regular meetings to create and sustain long-

term relationships with local community and religious leaders. These forums permit

respectful debate and discussion, help dispel rumors, and identify common interests

and shared goals. Strategically, the engagements can create a win-win for both the

organization and the public, and foster support for Coalition efforts and goals.

While interaction with civil society takes place, it is still too limited. Despite

meetings with local citizens, NATO lacks language skills and has not created lasting

bonds with Afghan civil society. This is a major weakness of NATO’s communication

efforts.35 There is evidence that the participation and commitment of Afghan people is

not always obtained. For example, the PRTs in Nangarhar and Laghman Provinces

found Afghans there did not use U.S. government-funded development projects. Those

Afghans living in non-violent provincial districts viewed the projects as foreign-provided

13

services because they were not given the opportunity to provide their input in the design

and planning of the projects.36 This indicates an area in which U.S. and Coalition forces

should focus their relationship building efforts to ensure citizens’ expectations and

needs are met.

There is no evidence that strategic communication is used intentionally to foster

mutually beneficial organization-public relationships, or that relationship building is even

considered as a critical, strategic requirement. Of course, the United States has an

active strategic communication program that uses the message influence model to

promote its activities and garner support from the Afghan people. The question is

whether the efforts of the leaders and military units are part of comprehensive a

relationship management approach.

Public opinion polls also provide evidence that the United States is not achieving

its objectives. A report released by ABC News and its media partners in December

2010 showed the limits of U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. The poll revealed that Afghans

were more negative in their assessment of the presence and performance of U.S. and

NATO forces. Nationally, ratings of U.S. performance, confidence in its ability to provide

security, and support for its presence all matched previous lows or set new ones in the

poll.37

In a survey of public opinion by the International Republican Institute in

November 2009, 69 percent of Afghans were satisfied with the development and

reconstruction projects implemented by the international community. In contrast, 28

percent of the respondents were dissatisfied, citing a gap in reconstruction efforts and

14

local needs.38 This perspective is especially disturbing after more than a decade of U.S.

involvement in Afghanistan.

The Asia Foundation's 2010 survey of the Afghan people found that

unemployment remains one of the most pressing issues in Afghanistan. More than two

thirds (70 percent) of respondents said the availability of jobs in their local area is quite

bad or very bad. Almost two thirds (65 percent) said the same about the supply of

electricity.39 These numbers indicate just two areas of concern among the Afghan

populace that the United States could work to improve.

Relational Communication Theory

Given the lack of comprehensive progress toward securing the support of the

Afghan populace in the past decade, professional communicators need a theoretical

framework beyond the message influence model on which to base effective strategic

communication practice.

A survey of academic literature reveals an array of theories, models, concepts,

and paradigms that together help describe the complex and multi-dimensional nature of

human communication. This body of knowledge has come from numerous disciplines,

including interpersonal communication, speech, linguistics, anthropology, clinical

psychology, and the social sciences.

Theory can provide solutions for practical situations. Practical theories suggest

new constructive ways of looking at situations. Old patterns are transformed and new

understandings and actions are created that are more effective. Practical theories can

identify the problems, techniques, and potential outcomes within a certain area of

practice. Using practical theories, practitioners think about and gain insight into the

problems and principles used by actual communicators in various situations. Practical

15

theories guide communicators to think through situations and select from a range of

options. The communicator understands what is happening and can make strategic

choices when faced with a problem.40

Moving beyond the simple linear message influence model and the transactional

model, anthropologist Bateson developed the theory of relational communication. The

relational communication body of knowledge is the most promising theory to advance

the effective practice of strategic communication.

Bateson developed two seminal propositions that serve as the foundation for

other relational theories. The first proposition is the dual nature of messages. Every

communicative exchange has two messages, a report message and a command

message. The report message contains the substance or content of the communication,

while the command message describes the relationship. These two elements are also

known as the content message and the relationship message.41

Bateson’s second proposition is that relationships can be characterized by

complementarity or symmetry. In a complementary relationship, if one participant is

dominant, the other is submissive. In symmetry, dominance is met by dominance;

submissiveness elicits submissiveness.42

Equally useful for understanding relational communication is the relational

dialectics theory. Baxter and her colleagues explored “the complex ways in which

persons-in-relationship use communication to manage the naturally opposing forces

that impinge on their relationship at any given time.” She viewed relationship as a

dialogical and dialectical process. By describing relationship as both dialogical and

16

dialectical, Baxter meant that “the natural tensions of relationships are managed

through coordinated talk.”43

Baxter characterized her theory as dialogic, meaning relationships are defined

through dialogue. She viewed dialogue as “conversations that define and redefine

relationships as they emerge in actual situations over time.”44 She also referred to her

theory as dialectical, meaning that contradictions are managed in relationships. For

Baxter, “dialectic refers to a tension between opposing forces within a system. They are

sites of struggle among meanings that arise in various and not-always consistent

discourses.”45

The theories pioneered by Bateson and Baxter provide the starting point for a

general public relations theory of relationship management useful for the practice of

strategic communication. In a business context, "public relations is the management

function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an

organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends."46 47

Relationship Management

The quality of the relationships between an organization and its strategic publics

will determine organizational success in the contemporary milieu. Dewey and Blumer,

two classic theorists of public opinion, assumed that publics arise around issues or

problems that affect them.48 Publics begin as disconnected systems of individuals

experiencing common problems. The behaviors of organizations can create problems

that create publics.49 Publics include those with whom the organization must establish

and maintain enduring and mutually beneficial relationships.

Hon and J. Grunig pointed out that "an organization-public relationship begins

when there are consequences created by an organization that affect publics, or when

17

the behaviors of publics have consequences on an organization."50 Ledingham and

Bruning defined organization-public relationships as “the state which exists between an

organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the economic,

social, cultural, or political well being of the other.” An ideal organization-public

relationship, then, would be "the state that exists between an organization and its key

publics that provides economic, social, political, and/or cultural benefits to all parties

involved, and is characterized by mutual positive regard."51

In 2003 Ledingham construed relationship management as a general theory of

public relations, and suggested that relationship management involves "effectively

managing organization-public relationships around common interests and shared goals,

over time, [which] results in mutual understanding and benefit for interacting

organizations and publics."52 The relationship management approach requires that

practitioners develop initiatives centered on the notion of mutual benefit, thus

maintaining balance between both organization and public interests.53 Relationship

management in public relations settings implies the development, maintenance, growth,

and nurturing of mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its

significant publics.54

Ledingham’s theory of relationship management has three tenets. The first tenet

suggests a linkage between organization-public relationships and outcomes such as

improved satisfaction and levels of loyalty. The second tenet suggests that

organizations and publics should identify common interests and goals and identify gaps

which can be reduced. The third tenet requires public relations practitioners to propose

ways organizations and publics can improve mutual benefit and understanding.55

18

Relationship building in the 21st century will be a strategic function directed by

communication professionals. Key organizational senior leaders will engage in this

function by building productive relationships that emphasize mutual support and

cooperation.56 Practitioners will develop and implement communication practices to help

cultivate and maintain relationships with publics to achieve goals. Publics become the

center of activity, directing the actions of organizations.

J. Grunig and Hunt believed that public relations served to manage

communication between an organization and its publics,57 while Ledingham and Bruning

viewed public relations precisely as "relationship management."58 Wilson stated the role

of public relations "is to facilitate positive communication between an organization and

its publics and that requires building relationships."59

In this context, public relations assists an organization adapt to a changing

environment by providing information that identifies strategic publics, reports the

concerns or expectations of these publics, and forecasts societal issues, and how

publics will emerge around these issues. Public relations practitioners counsel top

leaders on the consequences of organizational strategies, policies, and behavior on key

publics. Public relations counselors should advise organizational leaders by addressing

issues and by showing how to align organizational goals and behaviors to public values

and norms, in ways that serve both the organizational and public interests. By building

mutually beneficial relationships, “an organization obtains legitimacy, garners trust, and

builds a good reputation."60

Ledingham and Bruning suggested that the key elements of an organization-

public relationship were reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy, openness,

19

mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding. They recommended that researchers

and practitioners use these concepts when measuring the quality of strategic

relationships.61 Hutton suggested that relationships consist of some combination of

trust, commitment, communication, the costs to exit the relationship and shared

values.62 Scholars found that publics expect organization-public exchanges to be

mutually beneficial. Publics also expected that mutuality to extend for the life of the

relationship.63

In the relationship management perspective, measuring public relations

outcomes are based on the quality of mutually beneficial relationships between an

organization and its strategic publics. Program success is based on assessing the

changes in attitude, evaluation, and/or behavior.64 Practitioners evaluate communication

activities by measuring their effects and correlating them with the attributes of a good

relationship.65 The quality of a relationship is a better predictor of long-term strategic

outcomes.

Measuring relationship outcomes marks a movement away from traditional

impact measures such as the quantity of press releases produced or number of stories

placed in the press. Media placements are the immediate results of a particular public

relations program, and are measures of short-term, tactical outputs. Gauging

relationship quality also goes beyond outtake measures which judge whether or not the

target audience received the message, and the degree of retention, comprehension,

and awareness.66

Looking at costs is another method of assessing relationship quality. Through the

relationship-building efforts of public relations, “the organization saves big money by

20

reducing the costs of litigation, regulation, legislation, or pressure campaigns that result

from bad relationships with publics – especially activist groups.”67

The Communication Linkage. The reviewed literature supports the idea that

relationships – not communication – are the appropriate domain of public relations, and

that communication by itself cannot sustain long-term relationships or achieve strategic

outcomes. Communication serves as a tool to help an organization begin, nurture, and

maintain relationships with its publics. “The value of communication rests on its

contribution to the quality of the organization-public relationship.”68 Relationship

management uses communication strategically.69

Communication bridges the relational gap. Communication should help deal with

the consequences from the interactions between an organization and its publics. “The

outcome of communication is not the end of the relationship; rather, it should lead the

relationship to another level."70

Public relations practitioners help develop strong relationships with an

organization's publics that can endure adversity and competing interests through

dialogic communication.71 As Baxter noted in her relational dialogic and dialectic theory,

relationships are created by the participants in conversation. Relationships do not

happen by themselves. They are created, nurtured, and maintained through

communication.72

Kent and Taylor argued that organizations should engage in a dialogic approach

when practicing public relations because such an approach can "change the nature of

the organization-public relationships by placing emphasis on the relationship."73

Engaging in a dialogic approach requires organizations to actively solicit information

21

from key publics and listen to, process, and respond to those messages. As the

dialogue progresses, public relations practitioners are better able to identify common

interests and shared goals. When used ethically, a dialogic approach can build

relationships that serve both organizational and public interests.74

The dialogic approach views publics as active and equal participants in a

dialogue with the organization. An organization focuses on the nature of the

relationships is has or should have with its publics rather than on the publics

themselves.75

According to J. Grunig, communication is essential to the practice of public

relations excellence. Excellence is based on two-way symmetrical communication,

centered on dialogue – the give-and-take between two parties. Thus, a relationship is

built on interactive communication between the organization and its publics. Both

parties are involved in sharing ideas and shaping the nature of the relationship.

Communication helps the organization understand and also negotiate expectations with

its publics. The organization's success depends on how well it satisfies the demands of

its publics.76

Publics can use communication to persuade the organization to accept the

public's position. If persuasion occurs in the two-way symmetric model, the public is just

as likely to persuade the organization to change attitudes or behaviors as the

organization is likely to change the public's attitudes or behaviors. Ideally, both

management and publics will change somewhat after a public relations effort.77

Bruning and Lamb claimed that organizations should communicate both content

and relational messages when interacting. Most organizations focus only on

22

communicating content messages and often fail to attend to the relational aspects of

organization-public communication.78 This is based on one of the propositions of

Bateson's relational theory of communication discussed earlier.

According to Tufte, “Successful communication articulates trust, promotes

feelings of security and belonging, and leads to reflection and action.” Communication

for sustained change invests as much effort in ensuring the audience is capable of

engaging with the messenger and is strong and resilient enough to enact change. “This

is the most likely way in which target populations will re-evaluate loyalties and

behavior.”79

The lesson for strategic communications professionals operating at home, in

Afghanistan, or in other theaters around the world is that a participatory, relational

communication approach works best. Developing a dialogue with the local population

and providing a range of information to help people make meaning from messages and

free choices, rather than telling them what to do in a message influence approach, is the

right method. The conversations will help create, develop, and maintain the

relationships between the Coalition and the people over the long term.

Recommendations

The relational theory and the relationship management approach have gained

scholarly and practical interest in the past decade. They offer promise for

communication professionals conducting activities to support organizational goals.

To firmly embed theory in strategic communication practice, a number of

recommendations are offered. First, use relational theory as the foundation for more

effective strategic communication practice. Second, replace the message influence

model with the relationship management approach that focuses on the quality of

23

mutually beneficial relationships organizations develop and maintain with strategic

publics. The relationship – not the message – determines the meaning that a person

makes from the communication.

Third, redefine the strategic communication process built on the Department of

Defense’s “Principles of Strategic Communication.” The U.S. government must initiate

and sustain mutually beneficial relationships with its strategic audiences. Through

respectful dialogue, publics create accurate meaning from messages. The resulting

understanding allows both an organization and its publics to achieve their goals. Both

the organization and publics influence the other, and communication activities link the

parties. Measuring success depends on the quality of the relationship, not on counting

media clips. The Defense Department should judge relationship quality by using the

elements of an organization-public relationship – reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual

legitimacy, openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding – advanced by

Ledingham and Bruning.

Finally, articulate a new definition of strategic communication that focuses on the

process of relationship building through dialogue, where both the organization and its

strategic publics can influence each other and achieve mutually beneficial goals. The

emphasis is on creating a space for dialogue and debate, permitting the audience to

make meaning from messages.

Conclusion

This paper proposes an alternative to the way strategic communication is

currently conducted by the U.S. government. Ten years is enough time to prove that the

message influence model does not work. It is time to apply relational theory to strategic

communication practice. Through dialogue and relationship building the U.S.

24

government can better understand its strategic publics, build trust, and achieve goals

that benefit all parties.

Building solid, win-win relationships with strategic publics by genuinely listening

to concerns through dialogue, incorporating opinions and desires into the decision

making process, and safeguarding public interests is not just a one-time, tactical

assignment. Research has shown that relationship cultivation and building is a long-

term, strategic process.80

When relationships with publics are treated as ends rather than means,

remarkable things happen. Effectively managed long-term relationships benefit both for

the organization and publics. The implications and applications to the relational

management perspective are limited only by the imagination of communication

practitioners, researchers, educators, and theorists.

Relationship management will only evolve through an awareness and

understanding of this public relations paradigm and its diverse theoretical foundations.

The over-used message influence model is far from sufficient to explain and predict the

intricacies of strategic communication as it increasingly moves toward a central focus on

relationships within the organization-public context.

Strategic communication will only advance when practitioners and senior leaders

embrace relational theory and the relationship management approach. Creating

mutually beneficial organization-public relationships allows all parties to achieve their

goals. Relationship quality is a more powerful measure of program success than

counting press releases. Putting strategic publics in the center parallels COIN doctrine,

25

and helps build popular consent and support. The U.S. government needs to shift to

relationship management while there is still time to gain Afghan citizens’ support.

Endnotes

1 Steven R Corman, Angela Trethewey, and Bud Goodall, A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas: From Simplistic Influence to Pragmatic Complexity (Arizona State University: Consortium for Strategic Communication, April 3, 2007) 4.

2 The Washington Post, “Analysis: Crisis Over Afghan Killings may Follow Familiar Script,” Mar. 13, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/analysis-crisis-over-afghan-killings-may-follow-familiar-script/2012/03/13/gIQA8ogbAS_story_1.html (accessed Mar. 19, 2012).

3 Corman et al., A 21st Century Model for Communication in the Global War of Ideas, 3.

4 C.E. Shannon, “A Mathematical Theory of Communication,” The Bell System Technical Journal 27, (July, October 1948): 2.

5 David K. Berlo, The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1960), 10.


7 Berlo, 32.


9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Charles M. Rossiter, Jr., and W. Barnett Pearce, Communicating Personally: A Theory of Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Educational Publishing, 1975), 33.

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid, 34.

14 Stephen W. Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 2nd ed., (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1983), 23.

15 Rossiter and Pearce, Communicating Personally, 34.

16 “Transactional Analysis,” http://www.businessballs.com/transact.htm (accessed Feb. 23, 2012).

26


18 Raymond K. Tucker, Richard L. Weaver, II, and Cynthia Berryman-Fink, Research in Speech Communication (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981), 273.


20 Ibid, 14-15, 17.

21 Ibid, 35.

22 Tucker et al., Research in Speech Communication, 274.

23 T. Dean Thomlison, “An Interpersonal Primer With Implications for Public Relations,” in Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, ed. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (Mahaw, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000), 182.

24 Ibid., 182-183.

25 The White House, National Framework for Strategic Communication (Washington, DC: The White House, Mar. 16, 2010), 2.

26 U.S. Defense Science Board, Task Force on Strategic Communication, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication (Washington: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, 2004), 2.

27 Ibid., 11.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid, 29.

30 U.S. Department of Defense, Principles of Strategic Communication (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, Aug. 15, 2009), 5.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid., 6.

33 Ibid.

34 Severin Peters, Strategic Communication for Crisis Management Operations of International Organizations: ISAF Afghanistan and EULEX Kosovo (Bruges, Belgium: College of Europe, Jan. 2010), 5.

35 Ibid, 10, 15.

36 MAJ Joseph L. Fox, Information Operations in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom – What Went Wrong (Fort Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, 2006), 5.

27

37 ABC News, BBC, ARD, and Washington Post, Afghanistan Where Things Stand: Afghan

Views Worsen as Setbacks Counter U.S. Progress in Helmand (New York: ABC News, Dec. 6, 2010), 1.

38 The International Republican Institute, IRI Afghanistan Index (Washington, DC: The International Republican Institute, Jan. 14, 2010), 6.

39 Mohammad Osman Tariq, Najila Ayoubi, and Fazel Rabi Haqbeen, Afghanistan in 2011: Survey of the Afghan People (San Francisco, CA: The Asia Foundation, 2011), 16.

40 Stephen W. Littlejohn and Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2011), 30, 32.

41 Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 2nd ed., 165.

42 Ibid.

43 Littlejohn and Foss, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., 245.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid.

46 Universal Accreditation Board, Study Guide for the Examination for Accreditation in Public Relations, 2nd ed. (New York: Universal Accreditation Board, 2010), 16.

47 Within the Department of Defense, the term public affairs rather than public relations is used because of the legal restrictions imposed by the 1913 Gillett Amendment. This amendment prohibits the expenditure of federal funds for publicity to promote an agency to members of Congress with the intent to influence or to engage in propaganda. Public affairs practitioners typically conduct similar functions to their public relations counterparts in the business world. Within the military environment, public affairs specialists handle media relations, internal communication and community relations. Information operations integrates information-related capabilities during military operations to influence or corrupt an adversary’s decision making, protecting our own. Public affairs and information operations are integrated functions under the strategic communication umbrella. These functions can help create, develop and maintain meaningful organization-public relationships, just as the integration of public relations, marketing, and advertising achieve similar outcomes in the private sector of the communication profession.

48 James E. Grunig, “A Situational Theory of Publics: Conceptual History, Recent Challenges and New Research,” in Public Relations Research: An International Perspective, ed. Danny Moss, Toby MacManus, and Dejan Vercic (London: International Thomson Business Press, 1997), 9.

49 Ibid.

50 Chun-Ju Flora Hung, “Toward the Theory of Relationship Management in Public Relations: How to Cultivate Quality Relationships” in The Future of Excellence in Public

28

Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation, ed. Elizabeth L. Toth (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbum Associates, 2007), 444.

51 John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, “Relationship Management in Public Relations: Dimensions of an Organization-Public Relationship,” Public Relations Review 24, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 55-65.

52 Stephen D. Bruning, Jenessa D. Castle, and Erin Schrepfer, “Building Relationships Between Organizations and Publics: Examining the Linkage Between Organization-Public Relationships, Evaluations of Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intent,” Communication Studies 55, no. 3, (Fall 2004): 435.

53 Ibid, 436.

54 T. Dean Thomlison, “An Interpersonal Primer With Implications for Public Relations,” in Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, ed. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000),178.

55 Bruning et al., “Building Relationships Between Organizations and Publics,” 442-444.

56 Laurie J. Wilson, “Relationships Within Communities: Public Relations for the New Century,” in Handbook of Public Relations, ed. Robert L. Heath (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001), 524.

57 James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1984), 23.

58 Ledingham and Bruning, “Relationship Management in Public Relations,” 55-65.

59 John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning, “A Longitudinal Study of Organization-Public Relationship Dimensions: Defining the Role of Communication in the Practice of Relationship Management, in Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, ed. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000), 59.

60 Benita Steyn, “Contribution of Public Relations to Organizational Strategy Formulation,” in The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation, ed. Elizabeth L. Toth (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007), 139, 149.

61 Stephen D. Bruning and John A. Ledingham, “Organization and Key Public Relationships: Testing the Influence of the Relationship Dimensions in a Business-to-Business Context,” in Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations, ed. John A. Ledingham and Stephen D. Bruning (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000), 162.

62 Bruning et al., “Building Relationships Between Organizations and Publics,” 436.

63 Ibid.

29

64 Ibid.

65 Linda Childers-Hon and James E. Grung, “Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations” (Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations, 1999), 11.

66 Tom Watson, “Integrating Planning and Evaluation: Evaluating the Public Relations Practice and Public Relations Programs,” in Handbook of Public Relations, ed., Robert L. Heath (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2001), 265.

67 Larissa A. Gruning, James E. Gruning, and David M. Dozier, eds., Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2002), 136.

68 John A. Ledingham, “Relationship Management: A General Theory of Public Relations,” in Public Relations Theory II, ed. Carl Botan and Vincent Hazelton (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006), 466, 479.

69 Ledingham and Bruning, “Relationship Management in Public Relations: Dimensions of an Organization-Public Relationship,” 55-65.

70 Chun-Ju Flora Hung, “Toward the Theory of Relationship Management in Public Relations: How to Cultivate Quality Relationships,” in The Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation, ed. Elizabeth L. Toth (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbum Associates, 2007), 468.

71 Thomlison, 199.

72 Littlejohn, Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed., 255.


74 Ibid.

75 Shirley Leitch and David Nelson, “Bringing Publics into Public Relations: New Theoretical Frameworks for Practice,” in Handbook of Public Relations, ed. Robert L. Heath (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001), 128.

76 W. Timothy Coombs, “Interpersonal Communication and Public Relations,” in Handbook of Public Relations, ed. Robert L. Heath (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2001), 111, 112.

77 Leitch and Nelson, 129.


79 Gordon Adam and Emrys Schoemaker, “The Art of Conversation,” The RUSI Journal 144, no. 4 (August/September 2010): 55.

80 Hung, “Toward the Theory of Relationship Management in Public Relations,” 444.

30

Documents

Toward a Theory of Strategic Communication: A Relationship